FY 2000 proposal 20051
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 20051 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Decrease Sedimentation and Temp. in Streams, Educate Resource Managers |
| Proposal ID | 20051 |
| Organization | Oregon State University Extension Service (OSU EXT) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Michael Stoltz |
| Mailing address | 102 Ballard Hall, Oregon State University Corvallis, OR 97331-3803 |
| Phone / email | 5417372711 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Blue Mountain / Grande Ronde |
| Short description | MULTI-YEAR PROJECT Reduce sedimentation, water temperatures, in Oregon's salmon streams. Educate natural resource managers to facilitate widespread management changes to benefit fish and wildlife |
| Target species | anadromous fish |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 9005 | Irrigation system replacement Trout Creek @ Willowdale II ’99 funds | Supports riparian enhancement, livestock management changes |
| 9012 | Mitigate effects of runoff & erosion on salmonid habitat in Pine Hollow | Supports improving riparian vegitation, reducing water temp., recover stream morphology |
| 9045 | Eliminate gravel pushup dams on Lower North Fork John Day | Supports improving riparian vegitation |
| 9133 | Bakeoven riparian assessment | Supports riparian work & exclosure fence |
| 9139 | Acquisition of Pine Creek Ranch | Supports riparian & upland area improvements, fencing, lvstk mgnt |
| 8339200 | Grande Ronde | Supports riparian habitat improvements |
| 8400900 | Grande Ronde | Supports riparian habitat improvements |
| 8402100 | Protect & enhance John Day River fish habitat | Supports riparian habitat improvements, fencing, landowner agreements |
| 8402500 | Protect & enhance fish habitat in Grande Ronde Basin streams | Supports riparian habitat improvements |
| 8402700 | Grande Ronde | Supports habitat improvement implementation |
| 8710000 | Umatilla | Supports habitat improvement |
| 8710001 | Enhance Umatilla River Basin anadromous fish habitat | Supports habitat improvements, fencing, bank stabilization, plantings |
| 8710002 | Protect & enhance coldwater fish habitat in the Umatilla River Basin | Supports habitat improvements, fencing, bank stabilization, plantings |
| 9202601 | Grande Ronde Model Watershed project support, planning | Provides specific training and support for watershed councils, supports habitat enhancement |
| 9304000 | Fifteenmile Creek habitat restoration project | Supports riparian habitat improvement |
| 9402700 | Grand Ronde Model Watershed habitat projects | Supports implementation habitat improvements |
| 9403900 | Wallowa Basin project planning | Provides specific training and support for watershed councils |
| 9604500 | Umatilla | Supports habitat improvement work |
| 9607700 | Grande Ronde | Supports habitat monitoring |
| 9608300 | Upper Grande Ronde habitat enhancement | Supports habitat improvement work |
| 9701100 | Owyhee Shoshone/Paiute habitat enhancement | Supports habitat improvement work, grazing management |
| 9702500 | Implement the Wallowa Co./Nez Perce Tribe salmon recovery plan | Supports Grande Ronde habitat implementation |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2000 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Personnel | 4 coordinators @ $40K, 1 project mgr/coord @ $50K | $210,000 |
| Fringe | 32% | $67,200 |
| Supplies | HOBO's, flow meters, locators, tapes, 5 computers @$3,000, other | $99,300 |
| Operating | material, weigh wagons, workbooks, nutrient samples | $15,770 |
| Travel | $47,500 | |
| Indirect | 20.3% for off campus | $105,107 |
| Other | incentives: no-till, stream site equip such as electric fence, solar panals, no indirect charge cost | $205,000 |
| Subcontractor | to help county paid expenses, include first $25K in indirect costs | $80,000 |
| Subcontractor | non OSU temporary help, include in indirect cost charge | $53,000 |
| $882,877 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $882,877 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $882,877 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| OSU Extension | dryland PI@ 20% | $13,000 | unknown |
| OSU Extension | stream PI @ 10% | $13,000 | unknown |
| OSU Extension | 18 Agents @ 10% | $120,600 | unknown |
Other budget explanation
Schedule Constraints: very dry springs that render unprofitable any annual cropping, extream flooding that destroys riparian improvements
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
Recommendation: Do not fund. The scientific justification for this request is inadequate.Comments: This is a proposal to reduce sedimentation from dryland farming in the Oregon Columbia Basin, via landowner incentives for no-till farming, and streamside improvements. An assessment activity for Eastern Oregon stream temperature is also included. Because the primary focus of the proposal is on mitigation of agricultural effects on habitat unrelated to the hydropower system, BPA funding of most or all of this proposal is inappropriate, and that the proposal should instead be directed elsewhere, e.g. to USDA. The proposal is expensive (over $1m in the first year, and almost $4m over four years, and may be too ambitious. No relationship to previous Watershed Assessment activities is indicated, so it is impossible to determine whether the targeting of activities is appropriate. Coordinated activities for habitat restoration in this part of the Basin may well be in order, but the case needs to be made in comparison with other habitat improvement possibilities elsewhere, and the case needs also to be made for how and why the expenditure of funds here would be appropriate. (For instance, part of the request is for funding of incentive payments of $10/A for producers to utilize no-till agriculture – however, it is not clear whether any of this acreage is near live streams.)
The proposed project could, perhaps, produce some public relations benefits and better involve youth and landowners in fish and wildlife recovery efforts, but it should be designed with input from fish biologists, geomorphologists, and other specialists to identify probable limiting factors. Should the proposers decide to resubmit, the panel would hope to see a map indicating current land use, current and projected sediment sources, current and potential status of the streams, and how the proposed activities would or could affect that status.
Comment:
Technically Sound? No
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Project management and project expenses appear redundant.BMPs are already well known.
The proposal does not appear to include enough real on-the-ground work and does not seem to be cost-effective.
Properly Functioning Conditions parameter is subjective.
The Extension Service should already be doing this work, without any additional cost to ratepayers.
Proposal exceeds the page limit.
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];